NationStates

Hello.

Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers
Regulation; Labour Rights

The General Assembly,

Aware that many workers internationally receive tips (and just the tip) for their service,

Noticing that many employers use this to cut down on wages,

Wishing to provide a stable income to these tipped workers,

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "tips" as remuneration by customers to a worker for the service of that worker to those customers, especially if it's normalized in a society to remunerate workers in certain industries for their services; and
   2. a "tipped worker" as a worker that receives tips.
2. Declares that:
   
   1. No tipped worker shall have their wages reduced as a consequence of them receiving tips or being expected to receive tips; and
   2. No tipped worker shall have their wages fixed at a lower level than the wages of other non-tipped workers, as a consequence of their status as a tipped worker, if the jobs of that tipped worker and the other non-tipped worker have similar or identical qualifications.

This really seems like something that can be handled by provincial/state tax ordinances. There is very little international concern here.

Wayneactia wrote:This really seems like something that can be handled by provincial/state tax ordinances. There is very little international concern here.

Not every provincial/state tax ordinance wants to protect the wages of tipped workers. I do.

Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers wrote:tip credit[s] must... together with the worker’s tipped wage, at least equal the minimum wage of non-tipped workers in the tipped worker’s location.

And what if your nation has no minimum wage?

Tinhampton wrote:

Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers wrote:tip credit[s] must... together with the worker’s tipped wage, at least equal the minimum wage of non-tipped workers in the tipped worker’s location.

And what if your nation has no minimum wage?

Out of the scope of this resolution, but for another...well, that'd be a shitshow of a debate thread. Maybe?

Minskiev wrote:outlaw tax credits altogether

I don't understand how this has to do with your tipping programme?

---

The nation has no minimum wage position seems plausible, even in a country which has relatively high levels of income equality. Effective 'minimum' wages could emerge from union action rather than state action.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Minskiev wrote:outlaw tax credits altogether

I don't understand how this has to do with your tipping programme?

Oops, typo.

"They should be glad they already get paid," said the Northumbrian ambassador. "In our country, the tips are not just confiscated but also docked from their wages after confiscation."

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:"They should be glad they already get paid," said the Northumbrian ambassador. "In our country, the tips are not just confiscated but also docked from their wages after confiscation."

"Arf." Wallace is known for these remarks, often meaning something along the lines of "Fitting."

Bump.

We see no good reason why member states should permit employers to outsource any portion of their workers' due compensation to arbitrary individuals who have no contractual obligations toward said workers. Having said that, however, this draft proposal assumes that nations set a uniform minimum wage per location and not, say, per sector. While member states are required to grant their legal residents a minimum standard of living pursuant to the Minimum Standard of Living Act, that resolution does not require a minimum wage of any sort.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Goobergunchia wrote:We see no good reason why member states should permit employers to outsource any portion of their workers' due compensation to arbitrary individuals who have no contractual obligations toward said workers. Having said that, however, this draft proposal assumes that nations set a uniform minimum wage per location and not, say, per sector. While member states are required to grant their legal residents a minimum standard of living pursuant to the Minimum Standard of Living Act, that resolution does not require a minimum wage of any sort.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Location of minimum wage, I meant. Hopefully fixed? Dunno how to word it better.

Goobergunchia wrote:We see no good reason why member states should permit employers to outsource any portion of their workers' due compensation to arbitrary individuals who have no contractual obligations toward said workers.

C Marcius Blythe. We concur with this assessment.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:"They should be glad they already get paid," said the Northumbrian ambassador. "In our country, the tips are not just confiscated but also docked from their wages after confiscation."

"Odd that your nation opposes service commerce."

Provided an outlaw-tip-credits variant.

C Marcius Blythe. I'm not sure why you need to introduce all these various definitions etc. Just say that a minimum wage cannot be reduced on the expectation that a worker would make up the different on tips.

Bump, should submit soon-ish. It may be very short, but does it need to be longer?

Minskiev wrote:Bump, should submit soon-ish. It may be very short, but does it need to be longer?

Usually, short resolutions have many loopholes, but I don't know about this one. Seems fine.

Minskiev wrote:Bump, should submit soon-ish. It may be very short, but does it need to be longer?

The phrase "declares that pay may not be reduced below minimum wage on the expectation that the worker will make up the difference in tips" doesn't do anything substantial. It is the reduction of the minimum wage itself that you want to target, not the pay. If the pay were reduced below the minimum wage... that would be illegal by fact that there is a minimum.

Further to that-ish, regulation and other categories with an area of effect should be Significant-ish. Why do you believe that this is Significant (Regulation/LabourRights) rather than - say - SocialJustice/Mild?

Tinhampton wrote:Further to that-ish, regulation and other categories with an area of effect should be Significant-ish. Why do you believe that this is Significant (Regulation/LabourRights) rather than - say - SocialJustice/Mild?

I think the category and area of effect (the description line is "Protecting the workers from exploitation and dangerous conditions at the expense of corporate bottom lines") is fine.

For countries without a minimum wage (Such as Denmark IRL, and mine IC), am I correct in assuming this would do nothing? Even if such a nation has an ingrained tipping custom with reduction of wage for workers who may expect tips?

"Our previous objections still stand."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What nonsensical, circular logic are you operating on Mr Russell? A minimum wage is a minimum. You can’t go below it. That’s the point. You’re banning nothing.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What nonsensical, circular logic are you operating on Mr Russell? A minimum wage is a minimum. You can’t go below it. That’s the point. You’re banning nothing.

For service workers, the minimum wages paid by the *employer* are lower because the worker is usually expected to make up the difference in tips.